I'm atheist, prove me wrong!

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by BallLightning, Mar 15, 2009.

  1. BallLightning

    BallLightning New Member

    Go ahead, give me 1 theist argument and me and my (hopefully there are some) atheist brethren will refute it while you and your religious brethren support it. 1 argument at a time, once we either prove or disprove a point, we move on to the next.


    P.S. I am actually a bit more agnostic than atheist.
     

  2. Wade8813

    Wade8813 Registered Member

    Wow - you sure don't believe in wasting time, or beating around the bush. No introduction, no time for us to get to know you - just BLAM! First post, you dive in with this sort of thread.

    Personally, I'm not a theist any more. But the biggest issue in my mind is the origin of life. I have yet to hear an explanation that sounds even plausible for how the first life forms came into existence.
     
  3. Chaos

    Chaos Epic Gamer V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm an atheist too. Should be interesting to see if any religious types will reply to this, or if we'll have to get a good old atheist-atheist debate going.

    Also: Wade, I think it depends if you're talking about Life as a whole, as well as how you believe the Universe to have been created. Hell, I just came up with a theory in five minutes on my own to explain it, which sounds like a perfectly acceptable theory to me.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
    PretzelCorps likes this.
  4. Nibbles

    Nibbles meep

    Well, do you really want to be proven wrong, possibly converted to Christianity or just start an arguement among religions?
     
  5. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    People throw around the word 'atheist' like it's some sort of bloody status symbol already. Is this not just an exact carbon-copy of a bazillion other threads before? :sick:



    The ignorant atheists are gonna say "Oh look, the poor stupid frightened religious people are trying to defend their poor stupid frightened beliefs again. I should take it upon my clearly superior intellect to judge and turn them towards the truth."

    To which the ignorant religious people are gonna reply "Oh look, the poor stupid atheists are trying to justify their sinful desires. I should take it upon my clearly superior piety and moral fiber to judge and turn them away from their evil ways."

    At which point, both sides will bounce off of each other for eternity using the "prove-me-wrong" argument, which we've established to be completely useless a bazillion times before, given that nobody has been able to prove anything either way for all the millions of years we've been around. :urp:
     
    BigBob, Tucker, Boredie and 2 others like this.
  6. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    If you believe this is it, then why waste your time arguing? If you are 100% good with your position then why not ignore things you don't agree with and live your life?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
  7. FutureTrackStar

    FutureTrackStar Registered Member

    Alright. I'm here. I'm the only guy on this forum that I know of that adamantly stands by Christianity. So here we go.

    Before the argument begins however, some things should be pointed out for a foundation. Most importantly, I think, is PretzelCorps' post:

    - I think it should be noted that neither person in this argument is less intelligent, we just have different beliefs (I will get to why everything is based on your belief later). I will not doubt an atheist's intelligence (if I have in the past, I apologize) and just for the record, while I'm not very experienced (18 years old) I'm an undergrad at Villanova and am a physics major.

    What I find interesting about PretzelCorps' post is the fact that he called both the atheists and the religious people ignorant. In doing so, he remained neutral. However, both of them cannot be ignorant... one of them has to be right.
    ------
    Alright. What should be straightened out is the fact that neither side can be proven, they can only be believed. Not seeing something is not a proof for its absence, if anything its a demonstration of the limitations of man.

    Basically, I have come to realize that a person can have one of two different fundamental presuppositions about the universe:

    1. An infinite Creator, who is a person, created the universe. The universe exists in this infinite person and He is the absolute authority of everything. He is unchained, and therefore not safe. Nothing holds Him back. He is separate from the Creation.

    2. The universe exists by itself. Something that is not a person controls/influences/explains the universe. This something is often called evolution, chance, fate, destiny, etc., all of which are not personal. This presupposition holds that a "god" may exist, but he is of the universe, and is subject to the same impersonal thing that man is subject to (chance, evolution, etc.), and is simply higher up on the "continuity of being" that man is on.

    Basically: Is there a person who is of absolute authority? A human may either say yes or no.

    Before I continue... do you agree with these statements BallLightning?
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2009
  8. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Rather than proving the OP wrong is it not his duty to prove himself right first.

    If you base aethiesm on empiricism then you must have the knowledge to prove the lack of a theist existence as correct. I'd like to here it!
     
  9. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    This is a big big issue. I'd think that the atheist of the past looked forward to a day when science could create life in a lab. Here we are in 2009 and the even the basic building blocks of RNA/DNA are out of reach.

    I don't pretend to understand it all, but if humanity with all of our collective knowledge and high-tech labs can't create simple life it seems like a ridiculous idea that complex life came to be without an intelligent overseer.
     
  10. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    I apologize, you misunderstood what I'd meant. When I said "ignorant atheists/religious people", I was not pinning all atheists/religious people as ignorant --> I was referring only to the atheists/religious people that fall under the category of "ignorant".

    I personally know many atheists and religious people that are not ignorant about their beliefs. Take my man, Smelnick, for example: very, very firm in his Christian beliefs, but astute enough to recognize that he probably doesn't have all the answers.

    To have a physics degree is to be learned in physics. You can still be ignorant in all other areas of life (by no means am I saying you are - I'm just using you as an example).

    I was only demonstrating the inevitable turns that a thread like this will take. There are two kinds of people that post in these debates:

    1. People that want to know the truth.
    2. People that are convinced they already know the truth.
    People number 1 can generally debate maturely and fairly, but they almost always get pushed out of the way by the tediously vicious posturing of people number 2 --> There's a difference between believing yourself to be correct, and "knowing" yourself to be correct.

    For what it's worth, FTS, I know I've given you a hard time --> It's not what you've said, it's just the techniques you've used to say it (some of them break some unspoken forum-rules I've grown accustomed to). I don't have any presuppositions about your intellect or insight yet, and the fact that you've stuck around thus far is encouraging.



    I am neutral. Both sides (excusing agnosticism, which has been pointed out to me as "light atheism") appear to stem from a very human desire to have the answers to questions, regardless how unanswerable the question. My own personal belief is that we lack the relevant information to make even an educated guess, so, really, I do think both sides are wrong (but not necessarily ignorant)...

    I think we define theism differently --> I place things like "fate and destiny" in the same category as "God".

    I'm of the opinion that an all-knowing God (should He exist) cannot be a "person", so to speak, unless He is not omniscient. The decision-making process that a "person" goes though is based on what they know... If they were to know everything, then that person would automatically know what the right decision is, thus eliminating the decision-making process entirely.

    I suppose that puts me into group number 2, in your books.
     

Share This Page